How did these guys lose?

>crusades were basically a pope-endorsed cashgrab
>crusaders raped, killed, looted indiscriminately while the arabs were dealing with the much stronger Mongol forces in the East
>retards in 2016 unironically think crusaders were right

>Do the unthinkable and against all odds conquer the holy city and lots of other territory.
>Instead of forming a unified state to effectively defend the conquered torritory against the enemy that completely surrounds you, give little princelings territory knowing full well that dukedoms, principalities and counties of europe are at constant war.
>Lo and behold, the princelings start plotting inmediately and rarely help each other when attacked by muslims

Well done.

There are 2 million muslims in Spain today

>Who wants to go to the holy land and fuck shit up and loot and do gangsta shit for baby Jesus?!
>YEAH!!!

>We did it! Who wants to stay in the arid fucking desert and be security guards surrounded by brown people?
>Ehhhhh...

a ton of dukes, counts, and kings fought in the crusades. They didn't like the idea of the glory only being given to one person.

They dehydrated to death in the desert while the Muslims defended the only water source. They made dozens of excellent charges into the enemy ranks and managed to reform and charge again every time they were beaten back until the very end. They were clearly the superior army with superior soldiers in both bravery, equipment, and skill. If they had water they would have crushed saladin

Sounds like a wonderful idea, where do I sign up?

>no head padding
>no gambenson
>no cloak
wew

Because even fucking Occupy Wallstreet was better at organizing and planning than the crusaders

>conquest of Jerusalem
>against all odds

The other guys beat them.

The movie ends before that.

It definitely was against the odds. They were outnumbered in numerous battles and nobody expected them to do anywhere nearly as well as they did given how selfish their leaders were and how prone they were to backstabbing. They struck at a particularly good time in which the Seljuq turks were in decline, and the Fatimids were worn out by fighting the Turks as well as internal conflicts. Looking at badly almost all the subsequent crusades and conflicts went, it's plain to see just how much of an upset the first crusade was.

You mean

>tfw you were born just in time to see the conquest of Europe by Muslims

But they were hardly as "united." Iberians did 90% of the work of the Reconquista themselves, and the Northern Crusades pretty much only involved the local powers.

you really should read up on the finer details on the first crusade, absolutely ridiculous how things went their way. you run that crusade a thousand times and it probably fails almost every other time

seriously. not to mention, peter the hermit's peasant crusade lulling the turks into think the crusaders were goofs, and the impeccable timing they displayed at every. single. turn. really easy to see how they inspired generations to come.

Arabs are too autistic and inbreed to be chads user. Specially pakis, they barely know how to talk to women or even behave.

> they barely know how to talk to women or even behave
They're so Chad that even when the above is true they still get prime european pussy

I dunno, Perhaps in Scandinavia, but then they have Bestiality whorehouse in denmark.

>Arabs
>Get PEP
Arabs and Muslims in general are usually beta as fuck.
Black people have no problem here. It's just Muslims.

>literally march into battle holding the true cross, the actual crucifix that jesus was nailed to
>still lose

because religion is a mental illness

>superior army

Thats why they recognized that they need water to fucking live before they set out to the middle of the desert, right? O wait

Life isn't a fashion contest, also Shit and B.O.? Seems about right.

that has more to do with bad leadership than a bad army. They were the most professional and veteran army in the world at the time, this was the same army that beat back saladin the first time.

it goes to show how important leadership is to success; when they lost their intelligent warlord king, they lost their wits. Their performance in the battle despite the literal absence of logistics is extremely commendable. Actually read up on the battle and you can't help but root for every hopeless charge they made.

Pakis arent even Arabs.

Because God was not on their side.

>They were the most professional and veteran army in the world at the time
Whoa now, slow down there.

Because they were thousands of miles from their logistical base in a time when transportation was extremely slow and unreliable, while their enemy was fighting on its home turf.

because they were a random band of murderhobos miles away from home against an army that, if not superior, were a lot more suited to the desert environments of the middle east

Because demographics.

>metal suit
>surrounded
>sinking into 5ft of sand
>heat
forseeable at least

Same way the left lost the election; they started believing their own propaganda.

Hahaha.. hahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

Do try the noose

>Not before the Arabs assimilate and race mix with all your women.
Are you goofing or what, user?

You do know that ISIS recruits its fighters mostly within the pools of European-born muslims, many of whom are harboring hatred against the hate for the West because it is where they cannot get laid, their women being shared out by either blacks or Europeans.

ISIS is essentially a /r9k/-tier uprising, with their fighters being lulled in by the prospect of founding a society wherein women would be subservient to them (which lo and behold would be just what would cure their lack of fornication).

Muslim cavalrymen wore the same shit crusader knights wore. Heavier even given their propensity to put Lamellar on themselves (on top of chainmail even) and their horses.

What Crusaders were shit at is light cavalry.

>we have a nice place to fight them
>"but I wanna go into the hot desert without water"
>ok, let's do that instead

Because allah blessed us the muslims with superior soldiers and leaders while all you got where greedy fat bastards. praise allah!.

>Muslims didn't rape, kill and enslave Christians and Europeans for hundreds of years before the first crusade
>Muslims didn't attempt multiple invasions of Europe before the first crusade

Keep slurping up that revisionism my man

0-o0-0o-0.tumblr.com/post/153129275609/boss-of-the-plains-rojdolma-kurdish
Christians are winning

>How did these guys lose?

They weren't being Christian.

you christians are so lame,muslims have more courage

masha'allah, it's been a while since I have seen another moor on this board

let's raise some زمزم water to the fact that the crusade were an overwhelming muslim victory

so its all right, they were just regular materialisticaly motivated military conquests, just like every other in known history, nothing controversial or in any way, nothing objectvely, historicaly, ''wrong'', unless we just take the stance that any armed conquest for any reason is wrong, in which case thats it, we just removed the moral dimenson from historical deliberation because by that logic all human populations that ever existed for long enough to be known of are inherently and explicitly repeatedly empiricaly prowen ''wrong''

...

inshallah brother!

As
Said, they lost their resident guidance counselor along the way. Also, you can't march an armor-clad army across an entire continent and expect morale to be high at the destination.

Sweden is actually a lot better than you'd think, the media just likes to jack itself off to pretending certain countries are amazing social justice paradises. Economically it is pretty far left, but only 3% of the country is black, immigration is slowing down a lot, and a few universities have actually gotten rid of stuff like gender studies because they aren't scientific. America is honestly more SJW than Sweden is.

lack of numbers and economy to fuel their wars

>Sweden is actually a lot better than you'd think, the media just likes to jack itself off to pretending certain countries are amazing social justice paradises. Economically it is pretty far left, but only 3% of the country is black, immigration is slowing down a lot, and a few universities have actually gotten rid of stuff like gender studies because they aren't scientific. America is honestly more SJW than Sweden is.

Are you joking?

>poltard when faced with the fact that the muslims were superior in the crusades

You're not really convincing anyone with your /pol/ screencaps.

>Instead of forming a unified state
no such thing back then

The first Crusade truly was blessed by Jesus Christ. The rest were just horrible fuck ups one after the other that actually did far more damage to Christendom than the Muslims ever could have on their own.

Not that guy nor a /pol/tard but they only got better in the later Crusades. The success of the First Crusade is a fucking miracle and the next few showed that (at least militarily) the Muslims were lacking and often were defeated by noticeably smaller armies

They lose by being shit in battle.

He was an old man already. Probably had a stroke or something.

>finer details on the first crusade
You mean how every Turkish prince was more concerned about their Turkish neighbors than the Crusaders, or about how Jerusalem (which my fucking post was referring to) had recently been recaptured by the Fatimids and had a skeleton garrison defending it? "Against all odds" is a stupid statement, because they in-fact had pretty much every possible thing that could go for them go for them. Had something as simple as Ridwan and Duqaq not been paranoid jealous faggots and actually worked together the Crusaders would have gotten stomped at Antioch.

Should have added, if you said Antioch was against all odds, then I would have agreed with you, but taking Jerusalem in 1099 was probably the easiest walled settlement the Crusaders managed to take.

Bucketheads BTFO by superior Ayyubids

Though a blessing for the crusaders at first, the Mongol invasions shifted the balance of power in the region. Things may have begun to change in the time of Saladin and Richard the Lionheart as the crusaders lost the more inland Jerusalem. The Turks and Mamluks adopted some of the aspects of Mongol warfare and filled the power vacuum left behind. The Byzantine empire which was already in decline after losing Constantinople to the crusaders in 1205 lost most of its land in Anatolia. The Mongols sacked Baghdad and Damascus (with the help of the crusaders) hurting the economy.

The ninth crusade only stalled the Mamluks who were now running willy nilly up and down the Levant which had been devastated by war, everything had changed and 1 by 1 the fortified cities fell.

The story is more complicated than that. Saladin was besieging a fortress and a noblewoman defended. Chivalry demanded her rescue, even if it meant a death march through the desert.

what was europe back then?
revisionism is not the word for you

> and the next few showed that (at least militarily) the Muslims were lacking and often were defeated by noticeably smaller armies
Define "the next few." The Muslims fared well in the 2nd Crusade. They did pretty shit in the 3rd Crusade, but then were successful once again in the 5th Crusade and pretty much every Crusade after that. About the only Crusade where you could say that the Muslims were definitively militarily inferior was the 3rd Crusade, given how much of a miracle the 1st one was.

It depended largely on European kingdoms or the Church and friends sending it armies to defend it after it was first taken. The HRE didn't do shit except write letters saying they'd get around to it and having their kings fleet sink on the way there. France and England didn't do shit once the wars kicked off between them and elsewhere after Richard the Lionheart managed to make a compromise without getting Jerusalem back. The popes power during times of strife dwindled and the Byzantines didn't even let the crusaders use Cyprus for a port until Richard had to take it by force after they abducted a English princess with a treasure ship.

Throw in the fact that they depended on Venetians to get them there who charged extortionate rates and the general time it took for European countries or the church to respond to events and you've got your answer.